Somehow the McCarthyism of the Left is okay because it only involves flunking kids? (Just to be clear: it's a Human Sexuality text.)

Ah! Flunking! That's an order of magnitude worse than stoning?

Quote:

You people will Keep the P.Z. Myers of the world right where they are -- and celebrate them. Give us more terms like biphobia, and paint anyone who disagrees with the true path of Maslow as an ignorant hillbilly. When selecting artwork on the issue of abortion, continue to have the pro-aborts holding the NOW literature and the pro-lifers dressed in grim reaper costumes, holding pictures of aborted babies. And as always, being sure that anyone with moral issues over homosexuality, or anyone questioning the number of AIDS victims in Africa receive either an adjective with "phobia" at the end, or a "denier" tag. And on, and on, and on...

Yeah. So those aren't examples of academics stoning people for disagreeing with them about homosexuality. If they were, each example there would refer to someone being stoned to death by a crowd of English or Sociology professors. You should look for those kinds of things.

You said that--and I love your phrase there, "you people"--we're an order of magnitude worse than the Taliban. Give me some examples of academics rounding up people who disagree with them about homosexuality and stoning them to death.

If "we people" are an order of magnitude worse, it shouldn't be that difficult.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Yeah. So those aren't examples of academics stoning people for disagreeing with them about homosexuality. If they were, each example there would refer to someone being stoned to death by a crowd of English or Sociology professors. You should look for those kinds of things.

You said that--and I love your phrase there, "you people"--we're an order of magnitude worse than the Taliban. Give me some examples of academics rounding up people who disagree with them about homosexuality and stoning them to death.

If "we people" are an order of magnitude worse, it shouldn't be that difficult.

midwinter, this playing pathos is the worst escape pod out of any argument that I've seen from you yet. Setting the pathos aside, my point stands. The fact of the matter is that nothing short of free love is presented as SOP in every Sexuality, Psychology, Human Interactions, etc., text you can lay your hand on, down at the local college bookstore. Likewise religion is disrespected, and generalized as a psychological phenomena that people like you can educate us out of. No wiggle room.

The little brown people took a look at this carnival and rejected it. The Enlightenment mantras of people like you have produced one hideous cultural failure after another. It now takes amphetamines and P.Z. Myers to maintain order in your paradigm. When you have a someone whom you consider the epitome of backwardness, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, lecturing a nation on it's kiddie porn addiction -- maybe it's time to admit there's such a thing as the soul, and that it has a spiritual problem.

(btw, over at Myers' site, the educated types there are past the pathos phase and are honest about what they are up to)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

midwinter, this playing pathos is the worst escape pod out of any argument that I've seen from you yet. Setting the pathos aside, my point stands.

You think what I'm doing is PATHOS? Dear God. We're not even having the same conversation.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that nothing short of free love is presented as SOP in every Sexuality, Psychology, Human Interactions, etc., text you can lay your hand on.

And that is "an order of magnitude worse" than stoning someone to death? I'd really like my example of academics stoning someone to death for disagreeing with them about homosexuality. Hell, DMZ, I'll cut you come slack: find me 5 examples of academics rounding up a group of people and killing them for anything at all.

Quote:

Likewise religion is disrespected, and generalized as a psychological phenomena that people like you can educate us out of. No wiggle room.

Yeah. I don't care about that. But I do like the idea of "people like me" doing this. And if you think that I, or anyone else, can educate someone out of faith, then you've got bigger problems than me. Poor, poor religion! Poor, poor faith! Poor, poor God! So tiny and fragile! So weak and threatened by a textbook!

Reminds me of that bit in Life of Pi:

Quote:

There are always those who take it upon themselves to defend God, as if Ultimate Reality, as if the sustaining frame of existence, were something weak and helpless. These people walk by a widow deformed by leprosy begging for a few paise, walk by children dressed in rags living in the street, and they think, Business as usual. But if they perceive a slight against God, it is a different story. Their faces go red, their chests heave mightily, they sputter angry words.

Quote:

The little brown people took a look at this carnival and rejected it. The Enlightenment mantras of people like you have produced one hideous cultural failure after another. It now takes amphetamines and P.Z. Myers to maintain order in your paradigm. When you have a someone whom you consider the epitome of backwardness, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, lecturing a nation on it's kiddie porn addiction -- maybe it's time to admit there's such a thing as the spirit, and that it has a problem.

I have no idea how you got to any of those conclusions. Although funny me. I thought that religion was doing just fine.

Quote:

Or maybe, you'll just grab another Dick Dawkins soundbite, and play pathos.

Poor God! That man Dr. Dawkins is being mean to him!

Quote:

(btw, over at Myers site, the educated types there are past the pathos phase and are honest about what they are up to)

Yeah. I'm sure they are. But again, if you think I'm playing at pathos, we're not having the same conversation.

I'd like my examples of American academics rounding up people and stoning them now, please.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I'd like my examples of American academics rounding up people and stoning them now, please.

You are attempting to have a nonsense argument to avoid the addressing the dogmatic strong arming, denigration of "religion," etc. that is ubiquitous in academia. And, like addabox, you are running from one disparate point to another when you get boxed in by my argument. If you would just hold still...

To recap: the West is experiencing serious unintended consequences of the Enlightenment. It is failing to understand things as fundamental to the sustenance of a culture as child rearing, or the effects of allowing narcissism to interfere with replacement rates. It's increasingly a debt-ridden, self-absorbed mess. The irony is that the ignorant, backward, little brown people can tell the difference -- that the Jihadis' work is being done for them. (To bring things back to the point of the thread.)

Professing to be wise, they became fools.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

To recap: the West is experiencing serious unintended consequences of the Enlightenment. It is failing to understand things as fundamental to the sustenance of a culture as child rearing, or the effects of allowing narcissism to interfere with replacement rates. It's increasingly a debt-ridden, self-absorbed mess. The irony is that the ignorant, backward, little brown people can tell the difference -- that the Jihadis' work is being done for them. (To bring things back to the point of the thread.)[/I]

Apart from in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the most secular, 'enlightened' nations in 'The West', also the happiest and most prosperous according to recent indices I can't be bothered to google for, certainly the most functional societies I've ever visited (never been to Japan.)

The problems of violence, illiteracy, poverty and societal breakdown you're thinking of appear to apply more to America, the most Christian nation in 'The West'.

Clearly the only thing to do is knock down them churches, America. They're not doing you any favours.

Hassan is absolutely right, although the smart person would counter that America is also the biggest nation on the block, which carries with it all kinds of problems.

At any rate, dmz, I'm really not in the mood to let you change the subject. You said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmz

Academia is an order of magnitude worse.

And in the context of that statement, you were insisting that Academia is an order of magnitude worse than an American fundamentalism that would stone homosexuals.

I have asked you for examples of academia being worse than this. You have responded with examples of academics talking about the subjects of their expertise, academics flunking people who fail to demonstrate knowledge of the subject, and of academics who are mean to people of faith.

I'm trying to get you to admit one thing, dmz: this is in no way, shape or form "an order of magnitude worse" than a fundamentalist regime that kills its people in horrific, medieval ways for contradicting accepted religious doctrine.

Once you've done that, we can move on to other topics. But until you do that, we ain't having the same conversation.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Apart from in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the most secular, 'enlightened' nations in 'The West', also the happiest and most prosperous according to recent indices I can't be bothered to google for, certainly the most functional societies I've ever visited (never been to Japan.)

The problems of violence, illiteracy, poverty and societal breakdown you're thinking of appear to apply more to America, the most Christian nation in 'The West'.

Clearly the only thing to do is knock down them churches, America. They're not doing you any favours.

The fertility rates of all those countries are very bad, (well below replacement levels) as is Japan's -- although the Europeans still have a better idea of what to demand from their children than Americans do.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Hassan is absolutely right, although the smart person would counter that America is also the biggest nation on the block, which carries with it all kinds of problems.

At any rate, dmz, I'm really not in the mood to let you change the subject. You said this:

Ha, just watch me.

Hassan i Sabbah, brings up -- once you peel away the abrasive, smoldering coating -- an interesting point: Why the Churches are **cheap shot overgeneralization** not able to address any social issue on any vector other than "let's just add a little Jezzus."

I get little flyers inserted with the church handout from time to time -- bearing the infinite wisdom of Dr. james Dobson. He dispenses what I consider to be a thinned down version of humoring children that still bears the same poisons of the culture at large. But the Christians don't listen to him because he can read the book of Proverbs, they listen to him becuase he's Dr. So as far as pulling down the churches, we might as well if they don't stop snorting the essentially the same thing as the surrounding culture.

Whatever is happening in the West, the Churches are not leading the way, ideologically.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Indeed, inferring and implying are different things. Too bad that neither has taken place here. Here is what you wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmz

What is the ultimate irony for me is to read about how the "American Taliban" will begin stoning homosexuals, or read one laundry list after another about what the fundies will do if only they gain control -- all the while I work in an industry where I watch my step.

Academia is an order of magnitude worse.

You are not implying anything here. You are stating, baldly, that Academia is "an order of magnitude worse" than an "American Taliban" of fundamentalism that would stone homosexuals.

What I'm trying to do here, dmz, is to have this conversation without hyperbole, as is, given his post, BRussell, who has asked you for a specific textbook that advocates "free love." There are any number of discussions about Christians in academia that might be had, but if we're talking in terms of hyperbole or paranoid fantasies, then there's little point in continuing.

I am trying to figure out what, in your position here, is fantasy, what is real, what is more or less universally offensive, what is just you not liking something, what is outright political propaganda, and what is just you not liking something.

So. A list of human sexuality textbooks that advocate free love and a list of incidents in which academics have stoned someone to death for disagreeing with them.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Indeed, inferring and implying are different things. Too bad that neither has taken place here. Here is what you wrote:

You are not implying anything here. You are stating, baldly, that Academia is "an order of magnitude worse" than an "American Taliban" of fundamentalism that would stone homosexuals.

What I'm trying to do here, dmz, is to have this conversation without hyperbole, as is, given his post, BRussell, who has asked you for a specific textbook that advocates "free love." There are any number of discussions about Christians in academia that might be had, but if we're talking in terms of hyperbole or paranoid fantasies, then there's little point in continuing.

I am trying to figure out what, in your position here, is fantasy, what is real, what is more or less universally offensive, what is just you not liking something, what is outright political propaganda, and what is just you not liking something.

So. A list of human sexuality textbooks that advocate free love and a list of incidents in which academics have stoned someone to death for disagreeing with them.

Fine

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmz

Just a note here, addabox. I work in the publishing industry, and I'm a Christian -- I'm not not blind and stupid. I'm too familiar with "multiculturalism" to risk my livelihood on it. What is the ultimate irony for me is to read about how the "American Taliban" will begin stoning homosexuals, or read one laundry list after another about what the fundies will do if only they gain control -- all the while I work in an industry where I watch my step.

Now, you'll ask for a clarification of that, and when I provide it, you'll say it's an isolated case, and then I'll provide another, and you'll say that's an isolated case as well, then I'll refer to my personal experience, and you'll call it anecdotal, and then I'll provide another case, and you'll say that's an isolated case too.... at some point addabox will chime in with some smartassim i'll have no choice but respond too, and by that time Hassan i Sabbah will be awake, lobbing one of his first-caffeine-jag-of-the-morning zingers, and by that time I'll have squandered the only 90 minutes of Battlefield 2142 I get a week.

And I'll be pissy and kick the cat.

Point being: You don't believe it -- and you won't -- because that would undermine your plausibility structures of life, the universe, and everything. Unless you're willing to go all Myers on me.

So, in short, I can't go there -- especially now that I have contracted biphobia. Now, stop single-handedly destroying America already.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Yeah. I don't care about that. I'm sure that if I were a charismatic Christian biology professor who taught ID in my classes, I'd be at serious risk for losing my job. But again, this notion you have of "dissenters" and "deniers" is problematic for this discussion. Denying what? What you want them to not deny? That, obviously, does not a conspiracy make. Indeed, if that were the case, I could wander around railing about how people are clearly being oppressed by institutions that view Foucaultian notions of discourse as a threat to their established narratives and their attendant power, and thus are refusing to teach it in the grade schools.

Quote:

Now, you'll ask for a clarification of that, and when I provide it, you'll say it's an isolated case, and then I'll provide another, and you'll say that's an isolated case as well, then I'll refer to my personal experience, and you'll call it anecdotal, and then I'll provide another case, and you'll say that's an isolated case too.... at some point addabox will chime in with some smartassim i'll have no choice but respond too, and by that time Hassan i Sabbah will be awake, lobbing one of his first-caffeine-jag-of-the-morning zingers, and by that time I'll have squandered the only 90 minutes of Battlefield 2142 I get a week.

Yeah. Rather than have imaginary arguments, I'd prefer to have real ones about real things. Pardon my commenting about you (which you do about me, below), but my point in all of this is that you seem to want to see some kind of massive conspiracy to destroy the universe where really there's just a world that's working in a way you don't like. The level of your disagreement with the world doesn't work out to an equally powerful conspiracy on the other side of the equation.

Quote:

And I'll be pissy and kick the cat.

You shouldn't kick cats, anyway.

Quote:

Point being: You don't believe it -- and you won't -- because that would undermine your plausibility structures of life, the universe, and everything. Unless you're willing to go all Myers on me.

So, in short, I can't go there -- especially now that I have contracted biphobia.

BRussell, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the psychological definition of "phobia" include both fear and aversion?

Quote:

Now, stop single-handedly destroying America already.

Oh, no, sirrah! That's my job! At least, according to the guy at the slopes a couple of years ago who casually, and with disturbing sincerity, called me a "commie" when I told him what I did for a living.

Now, go play 2142 for a while. I'm winding into the end of term, which means I shall post far, far too frequently as I try to avoid grading.

And oh lord, there will be soooo much grading.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

The fertility rates of all those countries are very bad, (well below replacement levels) as is Japan's -- although the Europeans still have a better idea of what to demand from their children than Americans do.

You see... advanced societies don't need "replacement levels"!

The population conundrum needs to be looked at from a global perspective, not a local one. there's nothing wrong with immigration when birth rates are low, if it's needed to maintain an economy, and it will happen, naturally.

The optimal situation is when we reach global equilibrium. Only then will we need to maintain the proper birth rate to maintain the global economy.

Yeah. I don't care about that....I'm sure that if I were a charismatic Christian biology professor ... this notion you have of "dissenters" ... Denying what? ... That, obviously, does not a conspiracy make. ... I could wander around railing ... oppressed by institutions that view Foucaultian notions...

Like I said, I can't do the time-consuming obfuscation thing -- the endless clarifications.

Just keep on keepin' on -- it's for the best. The current state of academia is probably most successful in driving the growth of small, start-up evangelical and Roman Catholic colleges. I guess maybe I shouldn't complain, in 50 years, this will all have come to some good.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Like I said, I can't do the time-consuming obfuscation thing -- the endless clarifications.

Yeah. That's part of the problem here: you seem to confuse "providing clear and convincing evidence" with "time-consuming obfuscation" and "endless clarification."

Quote:

Just keep on keepin' on -- it's for the best. The current state of academia is probably most successful in driving the growth of small, start-up evangelical and Roman Catholic colleges. I guess maybe I shouldn't complain, in 50 years, this will all have come to some good.

You are in some ways correct. The inability of evangelicals to bend university curricula to their will (and I just got done dealing with someone who was livid that one of our books contained an essay by Noam Chomsky) has indeed resulted in a bunch of small colleges. But these have been more or less irrelevant until the Bush administration came to power. But we'll see. I'd imagine that, like most politico-religious movements, it'll wind up eating itself.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Psychology and Sociology texts are just that -- texts. And as such they don't moralize. Nor should they.

Show me one advanced sexuality text that doesn't discuss the negative psychological and health effects of multiple partners. Just one.

Once again, the right is throwing out a bagful of ripe conjecture.

No, they discuss the possibilities of problems with multiple partners, such as abuse -- not the certainties. Just as they also discuss the possibilities of bad monogamous relationships. To paraphrase -- went and dug up the foul manuscript -- they specifically state, and cite research, that there is no connection in the sexual behavior of couples (whether they jump in the sack on the 1st night, or 1000th night) and the endgame of their relationships.

It's a smorgasbord -- that's it, I've seen too much of this crap -- it is hurting people who run headlong into this idealism.

Besides, I have biphobia.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

No, they discuss the possibilities of problems with multiple partners, such as abuse -- not the certainties.

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. If there is an X% possibility that something will happen, that assumes that there is, within that percentage, a certainty that it will sometimes happen.

What's the problem?

Quote:

To paraphrase -- went and dug up the foul manuscript -- they specifically state, and cite research, that there is no connection in the sexual behavior of couples (whether they jump in the sack on the 1st night, or 1000th night) and the endgame of their relationships.

So you disagree with the research?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Ah ha -- but that's what they said about the home/private school movement in the 80s, and now those 'kids' are sending their own children to college. Should bear watching.

Yeah. And I see some of those kids, occasionally. Some of them are incredibly well-prepared. Some of them are not, which is what you would expect of a movement that is, in some sectors, dedicated to limiting the amount of difference individuals experience. In fact, one of my sharpest students from a year ago left for an itty-bitty religious college somewhere because her parents were concerned that she was being corrupted by all the ideas we teach.

To be frank, dmz, I think what will happen is this: a small segment of the population will take kids out of the system for largely political reasons and will place those kids in an increasingly homogenized educational environment, resulting in a bunch of kids who have tremendous difficulty functioning in a heterogenous larger community.

You want to exert the political and social power of the Amish in 50 years? Go right ahead. All it takes is a few generations of opting out.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I don't think the research included the number of people who had their insides kicked out* in the process.

*Casablanca reference.

So you disagree with the research. To which I would add, I think safely, that you disagree with research because it reaches a conclusion with which you disagree politically. And so, I suspect, this is an example of the research, and the textbook, saying something you just don't like.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Yeah. And I see some of those kids, occasionally. Some of them are incredibly well-prepared. Some of them are not, which is what you would expect of a movement that is, in some sectors, dedicated to limiting the amount of difference individuals experience. In fact, one of my sharpest students from a year ago left for an itty-bitty religious college somewhere because her parents were concerned that she was being corrupted by all the ideas we teach.

To be frank, dmz, I think what will happen is this: a small segment of the population will take kids out of the system for largely political reasons and will place those kids in an increasingly homogenized educational environment, resulting in a bunch of kids who have tremendous difficulty functioning in a heterogenous larger community.

You want to exert the political and social power of the Amish in 50 years? Go right ahead. All it takes is a few generations of opting out.

Yes, but the "heterogenous larger community" of today wont exist in 50 years -- certainly not with the tendencies in immigration and fertility rates, and especially if this sterilization thing takes hold.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

So you disagree with the research. To which I would add, I think safely, that you disagree with research because it reaches a conclusion with which you disagree politically. And so, I suspect, this is an example of the research, and the textbook, saying something you just don't like.

No, not at all, once you jettison Morality you can accomplish many things politically -- and if you look at the culture around you, it has absorbed this book's ethos. "Eating isn't cheating." That sort of thing. All it took was for a generation to learn to lower the expectations of their sexual partners.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Yes, but the "heterogenous larger community" of today wont exist in 50 years -- certainly not with the tendencies in immigration and fertility rates, and especially if this sterilization thing takes hold.

What makes you think that US culture won't be increasingly heterogenous in 50 years?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

No, they discuss the possibilities of problems with multiple partners, such as abuse -- not the certainties. Just as they also discuss the possibilities of bad monogamous relationships. To paraphrase -- went and dug up the foul manuscript -- they specifically state, and cite research, that there is no connection in the sexual behavior of couples (whether they jump in the sack on the 1st night, or 1000th night) and the endgame of their relationships.

It's a smorgasbord -- that's it, I've seen too much of this crap -- it is hurting people who run headlong into this idealism.

Besides, I have biphobia.

Oh I see. So, in your opinion, abuse is a certainty. I get it. I guess...

For your information, I jumped in the sack with my girlfriend on our first date. Our wedding is in less than a week (we've been together for nearly 18 months). We are monogamous, and we both intend for our marriage to last our entire lifetimes. But since you're so certain one of us is going to have our insides kicked out, then I guess we'd better call it off.

Sounds like you're bitter about something... or just misinformed.

I would trust research over conjecture, especially coming from someone who can criticize a textbook for not declaring something a certainty when it oh so obviously is...

No, not at all, once you jettison Morality you can accomplish many things politically -- and if you look at the culture around you, it has absorbed this book's ethos. "Eating isn't cheating." That sort of thing. All it took was for a generation to learn to lower the expectations of their sexual partners.

Yeah. I don't care about this stuff. You've jumped again from something specific to some kind of vague rant about the culture.

Here's a question for you:

How is it possible to abandon "morality" (which is a vision of how individuals ought to behave within a society) and still function "politically" (which is a vision of how the world ought to be)?

I'll be back tomorrow. I'm going to bed, and then off to work tomorrow to continue driving America to hell in a handbasket.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.